Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[vladib2b]

One of the principles of Christian morality is “The ends don’t justify the means”. Hence, torture, which is intrinsically evil, can never be permitted.

Say for example we know a terrorist has information about a bomb that will kill tens of thousands. We cannot torture him since that would be doing an evil act as a vehicle towards a good end–the salvation of thousands.

But when it comes to the death penalty, the Church allows it IN PRINCIPLE in certain situations, such as when it is the only way possible to protect society from an aggressor. Admittedly, the Church says such situations are almost non-existent, since we have the capacity to put people away for life, but why doesn’t the Church just say “the death penalty is *always *wrong!”

Now, you might say “because this is akin to self-defense, and self-defense is legitimate.” Okay, fine. But then why isn’t torturing someone, in principle, a legitimate use of self-defense to protect thousands, such in the hypothetical example I gave above.

To sum up: if the death penalty can be legitimate–in principle–in some cases to protect life, then why might not the torture of a clearly guilty person be legitimate, if that would save the lives of many, much as the death penalty might in rare cases save the lives of a few?

I look forward to your enlightened posts. Thanks to all who contribute.

 

[DaveBj]

Those who know me on these forums already know my support for the death penalty as the only sure means of permanently removing from society certain types of criminals, given proof of their guilt.

I have serious problems with torture. I have not done a detailed study of the phenomenon, but but I have seen (more than once) references to studies where the torturees were willing to say anything, whether it was true or not, in order to get the torturers to stop. I am far from convinced that torture is an effective interrogation technique.

What I would like to happen is for someone to come up with a reliable veridical drug. Obviously, under our legal system information obtained under the drug could not be used against the person to whom the drug was administered, but it could help the SWAT teams find the bomb. And it would not be torture.

DaveBj

 

[chevalier]

The first problem with torture is that you don’t know if the guy is guilty or if he really has the information you seek. He will tell you all you want to hear if you sufficiently press him.

 

[vladib2b]

Thanks for the reply…but in the case I presented above, we do know that he is guilty…so what now?

I believe I’ve received few posts because this is is tough one. Anyone want to take it on?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks for the reply…but in the case I presented above, we do know that he is guilty…so what now?

I believe I’ve received few posts because this is is tough one. Anyone want to take it on?

How could you know? (that is why it is a false dichotomy)

Torture is intrinsically evil it requires one classify another as a subhuman, or violate the “treat your neighbor as yourself” it is a violation of Natural Moral Law. I would ask you to think about this –All torture scenarios assume you are the torturer never the victim. And they torture scenarios assume no torturer can error. So are torturers omniscient, and above moral reproach? That is the high standard you would need to achieve.

 

[pentecostbaby]

I’ll assume I’m the victim here .
Say I’m being tortured to deny my faith. All I can do is pray to God that he keeps me from doing it.
And that’s a situation in which someone’s probably going to be able to hold on the best. Say the situation’s different - you’re torturing me because you want me to reveal some information I don’t necessarily have (usually the case). Eventually, given enough pain, I’ll probably scream out whatever I think will get you to stop.
That’s why torture doesn’t work.
In addition - and more importantly - torture always violates the God’s Will. Would Jesus torture someone? No. Well, there’s your answer.
Even if you’re certain that someone has the desired information, and that you would get it through torture, you would still be doing a bad act for good consequences. And that’s still not okay.

 

[RobHom]

I think that the problem is that many people want to put things in a box and tape it shut…and resolve the issue with words that leave them comfortable, or on the high ground.

Capital punishment is accepted by the Church…because it (the Church) understands the right of the state to eliminate those who have committed heinous crimes…and who are not redeemable, and were they to get loose would murder again, and again.

Torture…that’s a bit of a tricky one.

If you are talking about “ripping out fingernails” and breaking bones, or beating someone unmercifully on a routine schedule…that’s the methodology of sociopaths who operate on a moronic level.

For years now there have been drugs that when properly administered…will cause the person under the influence to give up whatever information they have. Its not a new skill or even really new science…

But on the issue of garnering information…if I was given the choice and had more than reasonable cause to believe that someone…say a “terrorist” had specific information regarding the placement of bombs or poisons that will kill and injure many… He or she has some serious worries right about then.

I don’t speak of this “frivolously”…but the fact is this: a terrorist’s life and welfare is of little concern to me when the lives of many innocents are in danger.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think that the problem is that many people want to put things in a box and tape it shut…and resolve the issue with words that leave them comfortable, or on the high ground.

Capital punishment is accepted by the Church…because it (the Church) understands the right of the state to eliminate those who have committed heinous crimes…and who are not redeemable, and were they to get loose would murder again, and again.

Torture…that’s a bit of a tricky one.

If you are talking about “ripping out fingernails” and breaking bones, or beating someone unmercifully on a routine schedule…that’s the methodology of sociopaths who operate on a moronic level.

For years now there have been drugs that when properly administered…will cause the person under the influence to give up whatever information they have. Its not a new skill or even really new science…

But on the issue of garnering information…if I was given the choice and had more than reasonable cause to believe that someone…say a “terrorist” had specific information regarding the placement of bombs or poisons that will kill and injure many… He or she has some serious worries right about then.

I don’t speak of this “frivolously”…but the fact is this: a terrorist’s life and welfare is of little concern to me when the lives of many innocents are in danger.

And so it is clear he is subhuman to you, now are you omniscient, and above moral reproach?

If confused try to understand this - he thinks you are subhuman- so who is correct? Well in the real world the killer writes history claiming the killee was the bad guy. Will that be true if he kills you first?

 

[flameburns623]

One of the problems with this is the issue of what constitutes torture. Water-boarding, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation were acceptable “interrogation methods” used by our own country only just recently. The idea was to create a sense of hopelessness, fear, and helplessness in the subject that he or she gives up the desired information. Water-boarding, at least, seems to have now been removed from the ‘toolbox’ of acceptable ‘interrogation methods’ we use. Since there was never any intention to actually drown the subject, only to help create a sense of disorientation and fear–was this torture? If yes–where do we draw the line in defining torture? Most people could argue that merely being detained against one’s will is a form of low-level torture.

So far as ‘dehumanizing’ the torturer: sadly, war itself is dehumanizing to a great degree. You MUST think of the enemy as somehow less worthy of life than yourself, you MUST be convinced of the moral superiority of your cause–or it is difficult if not impossible to prosecute the war. Hopefully, in an open society, there are opportunities before, during, and after the war to re-evaluate the cause and to really be certain that you are engaging in a just war and prosecuting it in a moral way.

So–is some form of torture–or ‘extreme interrogation methods"-- justified in the OP’s scenario? Probably some things are justifiable–other things cross the line. Pulling out fingernails or cutting off body parts certainly cross that line. Extreme intimidation techniques–even pushing the subject around among a group of interrogators as if one planned to start beating him or her up–are probably just inside the line. At least so long as those doing the questioning–AND the subject–are given opportunities to talk to professional counselors, clergy, and others able to evaluate whether any dehumanization or brutalization is taking place. My two cents’ worth.

 

[AaronK88]

Torture is unacceptable. While I do not pity too much terrorists or murderers, if I were under a situation where I was being tortured, I would admit to anything just to make it go away. I would admit to killing anyone, the location of any bomb, or what have you.

I disagree with the death penalty because I don’t think it is our right to play that role. It is God’s role. Life in prison is cheaper and a much bigger punishment then the death penalty anyway. Studies show that a large percentage of murderers have suicidal tendencies anyway, so you would be doing them a favor by killing them.

I am pro-life, all the way from birth to natural death.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… The idea was to create a sense of hopelessness, fear, and helplessness…So far as ‘dehumanizing’ the torturer: sadly, war itself is dehumanizing to a great degree. You MUST think of the enemy as somehow less worthy of life than yourself, you MUST be convinced of the moral superiority of your cause–… Extreme intimidation techniques–even pushing the subject around among a group of interrogators as if one planned to start beating him or her up–are probably just inside the line…

couple of questions

Is it okay to treat your children this way?

Can you assure you will never have an innocent (wrong) person?

Can you fix the long term affects of " a sense of hopelessness, fear, and helplessness" ( some would suggest that is the best method to create terrorists)

Can you assure these “interrogators” never go over the line?

Just imagine your child is wrongly picked up and held in “a sense of hopelessness, fear, and helplessness” and pushed around under fear of a beating that is not a problem for you, it is however a problem for me. It is a problem for me even when it is your child (worse if it is my child).

 

[flameburns623]

couple of questions

Is it okay to treat your children this way?

Can you assure you will never have an innocent (wrong) person?

Can you fix the long term affects of " a sense of hopelessness, fear, and helplessness" ( some would suggest that is the best method to create terrorists)

Can you assure these “interrogators” never go over the line?

Just imagine your child is wrongly picked up and held in “a sense of hopelessness, fear, and helplessness” and pushed around under fear of a beating that is not a problem for you, it is however a problem for me. It is a problem for me even when it is your child (worse if it is my child).

No.

We live in a sinful world.

Can’t promise there won’t be mistakes.

On the other hand–according to the OP–we have pretty definite knowledge that a terrorist attack is going to happen that will hurt many people. We have pretty good knowledge that some people whom we have in custody could give us enough details to halt the attack. We have a pretty good idea of how to extract that information from those people, in a way that doesn’t coarsen our own people irrevocably nor cause more harm to the people in our custody than would be caused to countless others if the attacks take place. We know that if we make a mistake–if the people in our custody actually don’t have the information we require–we will pay reparations and possibly even send some of our own people to jail for the harm caused to those we interrogated.

Oh and . . .yes . . .if my daughter was one of the people suspected of having the information needed, if there were reasonable cause to believe she had allied herself so closely with terrorists then, yes I would accept what had to be done to get her to give up the information. Given the known parameters I’ve already spelled out: that we’re not going to physically mutilate her nor willfully impose pain upon her for the mere sake of hurting her, and knowing that we will do what we can to mitigate the negative consequences of such intensive interrogation, both to her and to those who do the interrogation. And, if it turned out that my daughter was wrongly implicated in this plot–I would expect to have full legal recourse to pursue justice against those who forced her to endure such interrogation needlessly.

In the sort of situation the OP proposes, one is really put into a position of choosing the lesser of several evils. Do nothing, and a horrific attack harms many–you have, by inaction, chosen to perpetuate an evil by your inaction. Use brutal, savage forms of explicit torture and you not only coarsen your own people but the value of the intelligence gained tends to be not very good. Use forms of extreme interrogation and you mitigate the coarsening effect to a great degree while vastly increasing the chance of getting the information you need to halt the attack.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No.

Lets see how long your “no” stays

We live in a sinful world.

Not according to you or the OP because in all these scenarios the torturer is always free of sin, and has more than human knowledge (that is part of the fallacy)

Can’t promise there won’t be mistakes.

Wow, so you are willing to torture innocent people and even offer your own innocent children to be tortured! I am betting you would change your mind if the situation were real

On the other hand–according to the OP–we have pretty definite knowledge that a terrorist attack is going to happen that will hurt many people.

Like as weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s)

We have pretty good knowledge that some people whom we have in custody could give us enough details to halt the attack.

As in the CIA?

We have a pretty good idea of how to extract that information from those people, in a way that doesn’t coarsen our own people irrevocably nor cause more harm to the people in our custody than would be caused to countless others if the attacks take place.

like unbridle the people of Iraq who will then speak in freedom?

We know that if we make a mistake–if the people in our custody actually don’t have the information we require–we will pay reparations and possibly even send some of our own people to jail for the harm caused to those we interrogated.

As in Iraq? Are we really unkilling the dead? Can we really redo the childhood of those who were young and innocent in 2002? (maybe we created 40 years of future terrorists)

Oh and . . .yes . . .if my daughter was one of the people suspected of having the information needed, if there were reasonable cause to believe she had allied herself so closely with terrorists then, yes I would accept what had to be done to get her to give up the information.

Okay it is my decision (not your) I consider her a reasonable subject wait I consier you one to so ship your self to Afghanistan. See you have no say that is why it is torture. If you believe what you say your standard is met. ( I have warned you over and over- all torture scenarios assume the speaker is in control) If you agrue then you violate your own words because torture only exists after you are suffering, hopeless, and powerless.

Given the known parameters I’ve already spelled out: that we’re not going to physically mutilate her nor willfully impose pain upon her for the mere sake of hurting her, and knowing that we will do what we can to mitigate the negative consequences of such intensive interrogation, both to her and to those who do the interrogation. And, if it turned out that my daughter was wrongly implicated in this plot–I would expect to have full legal recourse to pursue justice against those who forced her to endure such interrogation needlessly.

You just denied your argument, torture is not in your control ever, it is in the control of the torturer who can not be you. Can you really redo the mental damage?

In the sort of situation the OP proposes, one is really put into a position of choosing the lesser of several evils.

again exactly like the WMD’s, they have to exist it simply is not possible they never existed. Our tortures cannot be wrong simply we have not tortured the people enough.

Do nothing, and a horrific attack harms many–you have, by inaction, chosen to perpetuate an evil by your inaction. Use brutal, savage forms of explicit torture and you not only coarsen your own people but the value of the intelligence gained tends to be not very good. Use forms of extreme interrogation and you mitigate the coarsening effect to a great degree while vastly increasing the chance of getting the information you need to halt the attack.

Have you ever read about false confessions? I guess all those doctors and professionals who study that subject are fools and or liars?

The bottom line is simple once you become an abuser you can never, ever undo the actions.

 

[RobbyS]

The first problem with torture is that you don’t know if the guy is guilty or if he really has the information you seek. He will tell you all you want to hear if you sufficiently press him.

The proof is in the pudding. If the information turns out to be true, then you know he was guilty.

 

[flameburns623]

We still haven’t distinguished between what is illicit torture as opposed to licit but strenuous interrogation. THAT was the real debate going on in Guantanamo, fr’instance. No one is suggesting that the interrogators in any situation are omniscient but–given that they have a subject in custody who is reasonably believed to have needful information, the interrogators can do a number of things that will frequently, if not usually, elicit timely and useful information from the subject. There are by the way fail-safe tests for bad information: the tests include comparing information from one subject with that from what is already known and/or with that which is being obtained from other subjects with similar or related information.

Everything else that Texas Roofer is saying is just sophistry. In the real world–we can in fact gain intelligence that gives us a very high probability of an attack, and which identifies certain subjects as being likely to have additional information which might help us to avert the attack. We can also make a mistake in the information, so there should be check and balances of various kinds to limit the damage.

And in the real world, the United States and other republican democracies do have the will and the means to structure those check and balances into the system. The system actually worked pretty well over the past several years–it at least allowed us to expose abused, possible abuses, and alleged abuses, and to enter into debate about how to confront such abuses if needful. Remember we caught some people doing very illegal, inappropriate, humiliating and disgraceful things to some prisoners in Iraq. Those people were punished for their misdeeds. Governments and governmental organizations do have the ability to limit themselves. They also have the ability to go over the deep end–but that’s a risk we take in order to mitigate risks of even greater magnitude.

We’re not going to arrive at a perfect system. But when the choices are as stark as those offered us in the OP–we are then faced with evil at every turn and our choice must be the lesser of those evils. Texas Roofer seems to think that doing nothing with respect to what might be not only our best but only way of getting needful information to stop a horror.

By the way: I am as proud of the men and women who serve in the FBI, CIA, MIA, NSA, and whatever other alphabet-soup agencies work on our behalf to protect our democracy as I am of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. We ought all be proud of those who serve such agencies, even though some members of those agencies make mistakes. They are part of the team that help to keep us free.

 

[thomfra]

And so it is clear he is subhuman to you, now are you omniscient, and above moral reproach?

If confused try to understand this - he thinks you are subhuman- so who is correct? Well in the real world the killer writes history claiming the killee was the bad guy. Will that be true if he kills you first?

Texas Roofer. I like your posts! Nice one.

 

[thomfra]

By the way: I am as proud of the men and women who serve in the FBI, CIA, MIA, NSA, and whatever other alphabet-soup agencies work on our behalf to protect our democracy as I am of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. We ought all be proud of those who serve such agencies, even though some members of those agencies make mistakes. They are part of the team that help to keep us free.

Here we go…

 

[flameburns623]

Here we go…

Don’t know where you’re fearful we are ‘going’ but I will temper my patriotic support of those who serve our country with this caveat: while I do not believe the war on Iraq to be an UNJUST war strictly speaking–I do believe the outgoing Administration missed numerous opportunities for peace in the build-up to the war, made a worst-case scenario for justifying the war which I believe many members realized or should have realize was on shaky grounds; and then prosecuted the war and managed the peace in a way not calculated to minimize injustice or maximize justice towards the Iraqi people.

We had Saddam Hussein contained even before the war began. We had concessions from Hussein leading up to the outset of conflicts that we could have explored, and offers of mediation that we essentially spurned. When we won, our troops were not directed to defend the national treasures, the governmental infrastructure, or the urban facilities which make a stable peace in a modern country possible–we secured the oil fields instead. We did indeed allow at least some of our military forces to dehumanize the enemy. I don’t believe that we pursued an unjust war–but we pursued a war that had negative and unjust consequences, which moral theologians may be exploring for years as we look back and reflect on how this war was justified and then conducted.

All of that aside: intelligence agents and agencies are as much a part of the conduct of that war as actual uniformed troops. We should as patriotic Americans be proud of those who serve our country in any capacity–even if we retain a measure of Christian reserve that resists unthinking jingoism about the goals or actions of some of those who help to keep us free.

All of this is an aside and a derailment of the initial point of this thread. To bring it back on-point: the use of toture is among the things which stand to mar our good work in the Iraq conflict. We do need to have a discussion and a debate about the moral aspects of how one mitigates the great moral evil that terrorism is capable of inflicting without resorting to means which put us on a path to becoming as evil as those whom we would oppose.

 

[Ender]

Torture is unacceptable. While I do not pity too much terrorists or murderers, if I were under a situation where I was being tortured, I would admit to anything just to make it go away. I would admit to killing anyone, the location of any bomb, or what have you.

There are several valid reasons to oppose torture but this isn’t one of them. Aggressive interrogation techniques (up to and including torture) are often quite effective. I’ll repeat: I am not arguing in favor of torture I am only saying that it often does what it is intended to do. This was demonstrated in the three cases where waterboarding was used; in all three cases the prisoner gave up valuable information. There are moral arguments against torture but don’t think for a minute that “it doesn’t work” is true.

I disagree with the death penalty because I don’t think it is our right to play that role. It is God’s role.

No, it is the role of the state and the state has been explicitly granted that authority.

Ender

 

[Dtmccameron]

No, it is the role of the state and the state has been explicitly granted that authority.
Ender

Umm…Just a quick question…Who gave the state that authority?

The people tolerating the state’s existance?

I could be going too far back, but as I remember it, whenever God saw a particular crime which He did despise, He said,
(and I paraphrase)
“Take the community out and stone them.”

See, the entire community was going out to execute the guy (or gal), because they weren’t killing him to avenge his wrongs, or really even to punish him. They didn’t kill him because there wasn’t any room in the prisons, or they were afraid he would get out. They didn’t do it because they would feel better once he was gone.

They did it to purge society.

Because God wasn’t interested with the peoples lives (in this particular case), he was out to protect their souls from the corrupting influence of allowing wickedness to spread unopposed.
(This is my understanding of things, anyhow)
But torture, always bad. Why? Because he’s a human being. Even if he behaves like an animal.